The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1887-06-25

J
:yery few seed that will not bear &
citing a mum Der Of years without =
A j:ng. Many separation Of property
duly rendered. in favor of the wife
against her husband cannot be inquired
into or attacked colsateraily by a
creditor of the husband whose claim
had not yet arisen when the judgment
was rendered. A married woman sep
arated in property from her husband
has the legal right to purchase prop
erty in her own name and for her eep.
arate account, and the burden Of proof
is on the party assaiiing the validity
of such sale. Judgment affirmed.
II. NJ. Blakemore vs. J, C. Blake,nore.
No. ll7l.
In case partition cannot be effected
in kind without serious Inconvenience
to one of the cc-proprietors OF the prop.
er,y held in undivision it must be sold
at public auction In order that the par
ution be effected by licitstion.
Succession of J. c. Taylor-No. 1873.
Under the laws of Louisiana the
only consideration which null mar
riage can produce civil effects Is that 1t
was contracted In good faith by the
parties or by one of them IN case of
the latter, the civil effects can benefit
only the panty in good faith and the
children born Of the marriage. The
good faith of the innocent party must
be evidenced by circumstances which
indicate reasonable belief that both
parties pretending TO contract the mar
rage were able to marry. Good faith
cannot be credited 10 u woman who
marrles a man who, 10 her knowledge,
has q living wife whom she has seen
herself few months before the pre-
tended marriage, by whom she has been
informed that no divorce had been pro-
nounced between the spouses aud who
had been informed a few days before
the projected marriage that the man
was married and not divorced. The
presumption Of good faith must yield
to positive proof Of the reverse. Judg
ment reversed.
State National Bank vs.. l.. u. Allen,
Jr., and Garnishees.-No.1 176.
In "a garnishment proceeding involv-
ing on appeal an issue restricted be-
tween plaintiff and several garnishees,
against each of whom plaintiff had
prayed for judgment in separate and
distinct amounts, the test of jurisdic-
ton is in tho respective amounts prayed
for against each Of the garnishees and
not by the original demand against the
defendant or in the total amount of all
the claims against garnishees, respect.
lively and separately. Appeal dis
missed.
II. w. Mcleod vs.. A. G. Simonton,
ct aI.-No. 1850.
In suit for the liquidation 'ol a
partnership to which the suing partner
engrafts demand against a third par ty
for the ownership of certain property
as an alleged asset of The partnership,
the test of Jurisdiction is the value OF
the property in dispute. In such a case
there is no demand for any portion OF
a fund to be distributed. The Supreme
Court can allow no damage in an ap>
peal not within its Jurisdiction. The
only judgment il can render ia one OF
dismissal. Appeal dismissed.
John B. Laitaude vs.. Mrs. Julia Treze-
want and Husband and G. W. Mont
gomery.--No. 1889. Motion to dis
miss.
Judgment amended and Increased.
By JUSTICE ToDD.-John II. Houston
vs. w., s. x =. r.. r. COMO. 1lG4.
Suits against railroad companys for
damages may be brought in the par
ishes where the damage or the injury
was received. When the speed of rail-
way trains Is not regulated by statute
unless in exceptional cases the ex-
istence of a high rate of speed does not
argue fault on the part Of the com.
papy. The reasonable rule Ia that the
highest rat Of speed is proper and
legitimate, consonnnt with the safety
Of the passengers. A person cannot
recover for an injury to which he has
by his own want of ordi.
nary rarc Juipmpnt reyersed
The S,ate vs. j G. WicklifF, District